NY Skyline for C&C Please

[dandaluzphotography]

Hey Guys,

Took this shot this morning. Not sure what I think about it. I was trying to capture the color of the early morning sky and I think I did that, but I feel like the photo lacks that certain "pop". The sky's colors look nice but there is not enough going on, I feel. What do you guys think?

Here are the settings:

Canon XSI
70-200mm 4.0L @100mm
8 Sec. @ F22
ISO 100

Thanks,
Danny

 

[RjL]

IMO it looks a little washed out and too dark over the buildings. Tomorrow try a faster shutter speed and let more light in. Or poss let expose a little longer on current settings. Increase the saturation setting on the camera and see what that does.

Its about trial and error but you are on the right track.

RjL

 

[gsgary]

IMO it looks a little washed out and too dark over the buildings. Tomorrow try a faster shutter speed and let more light in. Or poss let expose a little longer on current settings. Increase the saturation setting on the camera and see what that does.

Its about trial and error but you are on the right track.

RjL

That's a new one on me, faster shutter speed lets more light in

 

[RjL]

I meant slower lol. Guess I should slow down this morning.

RjL

 

[dandaluzphotography]

The thing is, if I slow down the shutter and expose for the buildings, the sky will be blown out. I have GND filters, but I don't have have an adapter for the filter holder for my zoom lens. I think the sky is exposed perfectly, it's just the buildings are really dark. The best time to shoot this in during sunset. The sun is directly behind you lighting the buildings. It looks nice. I figured I would try this. No Luck and I don't think I will have better luck without filters on any day.

Anyway, Thanks!

Danny

 

[RjL]

This is the reason I love PP tool like Ps. The picture is still real even if you combine two (one with the sky exposed correctly and another with the buildings exposed better).

RjL

 

[dandaluzphotography]

This is the reason I love PP tool like Ps. The picture is still real even if you combine two (one with the sky exposed correctly and another with the buildings exposed better).

RjL

I prefer not to do that in PS. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against it, I just prefer to use the filters to try to get it right with the camera.

Danny

 

[Higgs Boson]

This is the reason I love PP tool like Ps. The picture is still real even if you combine two (one with the sky exposed correctly and another with the buildings exposed better).

RjL

I prefer not to do that in PS. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against it, I just prefer to use the filters to try to get it right with the camera.

Danny

why?

 

[nonamexx]

I just did a touch of processing since you said you're ok with images being edited. How do you think this is?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I adjusted the curves a bit to bring out the sky brighter, sharpened it a touch and added a bit of saturation to get the oranges bright.

 

[oldmacman]

Hey Guys,

Took this shot this morning. Not sure what I think about it. I was trying to capture the color of the early morning sky and I think I did that, but I feel like the photo lacks that certain "pop". The sky's colors look nice but there is not enough going on, I feel. What do you guys think?

Here are the settings:

Canon XSI
70-200mm 4.0L @100mm
8 Sec. @ F22
ISO 100

Thanks,
Danny

I could be wrong. but I think it will be difficult to get the tonal range you want with a dSLR. Maybe a medium format camera, with a higher dynamic range, would be able to pull it off. From my experience with GNDs, I find them difficult and of little benefit on a skyline that is as varied as NYC.

Just for fun, here's a PS edit anyway.

 

[oldmacman]

I just did a touch of processing since you said you're ok with images being edited. How do you think this is?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I adjusted the curves a bit to bring out the sky brighter, sharpened it a touch and added a bit of saturation to get the oranges bright.

Does this look good to you? I think the OP was fine with the sky, because he exposed for the sky. It was getting some detail in the buildings that was the issue, I think.

 

[bazooka]

I think all you need to do is shoot the shot earlier... maybe 10 or 15 minutes. You are balancing between atmospheric ambient and artificial lighting ambient, so you just have to take the shot at the right time. But I agree, you did get the sky exposed well.

 

[nonamexx]

Does this look good to you? I think the OP was fine with the sky, because he exposed for the sky. It was getting some detail in the buildings that was the issue, I think.

I was putting a broader interpretation on it. I think such shots like these are better as silhouette than with too much detail. I also think what defines this picture is the colour and shadow, not the details.

I think your edit is great as well, but it is a different interpretation.

 

[Higgs Boson]

My beginner self would go with multiple exposures one earlier than the other(s).

You should take a morning shot of the buildings when they are front lit and sit and wait until sunset and get the sky. Order take out.

 

[reznap]

I like the original shot the best and oldmacman's edit is ok.

I'd like to maybe see this scene at a somewhat wider angle. I LOVE the neon sign, and in my opinion - especially considering the way you exposed this photo - that's the main draw for the eye. I wish that was somewhere near one of the 'rule of thirds' areas...

It would also be nice to have a little more space on top (just a tiny bit).

Have any from a wider perspective? Like the shot as is anyway...